It just published a 30-year study showing immigrants paid 14.5 trillion dollars more in taxes than they received in government benefits.
Every single year. For thirty years. Without exception.
The country was lied to.
Here is what the study found.🧵
In 2023, the most recent year studied, immigrants made up 14.7 percent of the United States population. They earned 17.4 percent of the income. They paid 17.3 percent of the taxes.
That means immigrants pay taxes at a higher rate than their share of the population. They earn more in income per capita than the average American. They generate more government revenue per person than the average native-born citizen.
That is the opposite of what the country has been told for thirty years.
Here is what the study says about the deficit.
Without immigrants, the United States would be running a deficit of approximately three trillion dollars right now. With immigrants, the actual deficit is about half that.
Without immigrants, the country's public debt would already be above 200 percent of GDP. That is a level most economists call a debt crisis.
Immigration did not cause our deficit. Immigration prevented our deficit from becoming catastrophic.
Now I want to walk you through what this means about the last thirty years of American politics.
For three decades, both parties have run on some version of the argument that immigrants drain American resources. Republican politicians made this argument loudly. Democratic politicians often conceded the framing while quibbling about specific policies. Cable news ran segments on it. Talk radio built careers on it. Campaign ads were funded with it.
The argument was always the same. They take more than they give.
The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank that has spent fifty years arguing for smaller government and lower taxes, just published the most rigorous study ever produced on the question.
The argument was false in 1994. It was false in 2003. It was false in 2015. It was false in 2023.
Every single year. Without a single exception.
Now here is the part I want you to sit with.
The deportation program currently underway is not just a moral question. It is also a fiscal one.
Every immigrant deported under this administration is, on average, a person who paid more in taxes than they consumed in benefits. The Cato study found this is true even of immigrants without high school diplomas. Even of undocumented immigrants. Even of low-wage workers in service industries.
Every deportation is the United States Treasury losing a net taxpayer.
The administration has projected mass deportations of millions of people over the coming years. Using the Cato Institute's own numbers, that is the United States government voluntarily walking away from hundreds of billions of dollars in net fiscal contributions.
It is also a permanent loss. The labor of those workers does not return. The taxes they would have paid do not return. The local economies they supported do not return.
The country is being told this will save money.
The country is being told the math the other way.
Even by a libertarian think tank that has spent fifty years opposing big government, the math says the country was already saving money on every immigrant who came here. Now we are spending money to lose those net taxpayers permanently.
The political argument was always cheaper than the policy. The policy is now collecting the bill for thirty years of false framing.
Here is what David Bier, the lead author of the Cato study, said in his interview with Marketplace.
"It's really the main way in which immigration is attacked in the political sphere is saying it's a burden on our society, and it's really not. These people are working and contributing and helping to reduce the debt and deficit."
That is not a left-wing think tank speaking. That is the Director of Immigration Studies at the Cato Institute.
The country spent thirty years being told immigrants were the reason for our fiscal problems.
The Cato Institute just published the receipts.
Immigrants were not the reason for the deficit.
Immigrants were the reason it was not worse.
Never stop connecting the dots.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🚨🧵MAJOR BREAKING : Today, the Department of Justice indicted former FBI Director James Comey for posting a picture of seashells.
I want you to read that sentence one more time.
The Department of Justice of the United States has filed two felony charges, each carrying a maximum of ten years in federal prison, over a photograph of shells arranged on a beach.
Here is what happened.
On May 15, 2025, James Comey was walking on a beach in North Carolina. He saw seashells arranged in a pattern. The pattern read 86 47. He took a photograph of it. He posted the photograph to his Instagram account with the caption "Cool shell formation on my beach walk."
The number 86 is restaurant slang. It means to remove something from the menu. The number 47 corresponds to Donald Trump's term as the 47th President of the United States.
Republicans interpreted the post as a threat. Comey deleted it the same day. He wrote in writing that he had not realized "some folks associate those numbers with violence" and that he opposed "violence of any kind."
That post is the entire basis of today's indictment.
Eleven months later, today, in the Eastern District of North Carolina, a federal grand jury returned a two-count indictment. The charges are knowingly making a threat to take the life of the President, and transmitting that threat in interstate commerce. Each count carries a maximum sentence of ten years.
A federal arrest warrant has been issued for the former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Now I want to walk you through what is wrong with this prosecution.
The legal standard for a true threat in the United States was established in 1969, in a Supreme Court case called Watts versus United States. The standard says political hyperbole is protected by the First Amendment. Only statements that a reasonable person would understand as a serious expression of intent to commit violence count as true threats. Political slogans, even harsh ones, do not.
On July 31, 2025, the White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that the new White House ballroom would be "fully funded by President Trump and other private donors — not taxpayers."
The same day, the official Trump administration social media account posted the same words. "Fully funded by President Trump and other private donors — not taxpayers."
On October 22, the President himself posted on Truth Social: "I am honored to be the first President to finally get this much-needed project underway — with zero cost to the American Taxpayer!"
Yesterday, six months later, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham announced he is introducing legislation to authorize 400 million dollars of taxpayer money for the same ballroom.
What changed? 🧵
Let me walk you through this.
In July, the project was announced. Two hundred million dollars. Privately funded.
In August, the project was promoted by the President with the phrase "compliments of a man known as Donald J. Trump."
In September, the President told reporters directly: "I'm paying for it."
In October, the President signed a contract with the Trust for the National Mall. The contract was kept secret. The Washington Post had to sue for it under the Freedom of Information Act. The contract authorized the Trust to raise an amount "sufficient to cover all costs," and pays the Trust a fee of 2.5 percent on the money raised, dropping to 2 percent above 200 million dollars. The Trust stands to earn approximately 9 million dollars from the project.
After 59 years of membership. After being the cartel's third-largest producer. The country that controls 12 percent of OPEC's oil announced this morning that it is walking out on May 1.
This is not just some routine policy adjustment.
This is the largest geopolitical realignment in the global oil market since the 1973 oil embargo.
Trump is turning Iran into a global superpower capable of rerouting the petro-dollar structure.
Let me walk you through what just happened and why it matters.
OPEC was founded in 1960. The UAE joined in 1967, before the country itself technically existed. For 59 years, the UAE has worked with Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and the other major oil producers to coordinate global oil supply. They set production quotas. They managed prices. They kept the cartel together through wars, embargoes, financial crises, and a global pandemic.
In March of this year, the Iran war collapsed OPEC's production by 27 percent. Seven point eight eight million barrels per day disappeared from the global market. That is the largest supply collapse in OPEC's history. Bigger than COVID. Bigger than the 1991 Gulf War. Bigger than the 1970s oil crisis.
The Strait of Hormuz, where 20 percent of the world's oil normally flows, is now under American naval blockade. Iranian shipments are turned back. Saudi shipments are partially routed around the Strait. The UAE has been producing 30 percent below its actual capacity for years, held back by OPEC quotas designed to keep prices stable.
This morning, the UAE announced it is done with those quotas.
On Friday afternoon, every member of the National Science Board received the same email.
It was sent by Mary Sprowls of the Presidential Personnel Office. It was one sentence long.
"On behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position as a member of the National Science Board is terminated, effective immediately."
Twenty-four scientists. One email. Effective immediately.
Here is what the National Science Board does.🧵
Congress created it in 1950. It is the body that oversees the National Science Foundation. The Foundation funds about a quarter of all basic scientific research in America. The Board approves the big spending decisions. The Board sets the rules for grants. The Board reports to Congress and to the President on the state of American science.
Members serve six-year terms. Their terms are staggered on purpose. The design was meant to ensure the Board would always have experts whose service spanned across administrations. So that science policy would never depend on which party held the White House.
The Board is also required by law. It cannot be dissolved by an executive order. Only Congress can dissolve it.
The President fired the people on it anyway.
Here is what else has happened to American science under this administration.
Let me tell you about a law most Americans have never heard of.
Eighteen months from now, every new car sold in the United States will come with technology that watches you drive.
Infrared cameras tracking your eyes. Sensors measuring your pupil dilation. Software analyzing your head position. Software analyzing your behavior at the wheel.
If the artificial intelligence in your car decides you are impaired, your car can refuse to start. Or limit your speed to 25 miles per hour. Or shut off entirely while you are driving.
This is not a proposal. This is federal law. It applies to model year 2027.
Here is the case for the law. 🧵
Drunk driving kills roughly 13,500 Americans a year. Drowsy driving kills thousands more. Together they cause about a third of all American traffic deaths. Mothers Against Drunk Driving has fought for this technology for years. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates the technology could save 9,000 to 10,000 lives every year.
Saving 10,000 lives is not nothing. That argument is real. It deserves to be made.
Here is the case against the law.
The technology is not ready.
In March of this year, NHTSA itself sent a report to Congress saying the systems are not reliable enough to mandate. The agency used the words "unacceptable error rates." Automakers agreed.
Bayer is a German chemical company. They make Roundup. Roundup gives people non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Bayer has paid over $11 billion in cancer lawsuits.
This week, Congress is going to vote on a bill that gives Bayer permanent immunity from being sued by Americans who get cancer from their product.
Here is how it happened. 🧵
In February, President Trump signed an executive order. The order declared that glyphosate — the active ingredient in Roundup — is critical to national defense. He invoked the Defense Production Act of 1950. The same law used in wartime to make companies build tanks and bombers.
The executive order does one thing that matters. It shields the manufacturer from being sued.